As the next debt ceiling battle draws near, an idea first suggested (I think) by our own Jack Balkin is starting to gain some (ahem) currency. Current law permits the Treasury to mint a platinum coin of any denomination. The coin could then be deposited at the Fed in exchange for liquid funds. The debt ceiling would not be violated, and this could be done repeatedly.

This strikes me as the debt ceiling equivalent of Lords-packing. In other words, it is a plausible legal threat that is designed to get an intransigent institution to back down, but not a threat that is intended to be executed. Is the platinum coin a credible threat? We'll see if the President dangles that option.

Like a parent dangling some plastic keys to deal with an irrational intransigent child?

Look at the pretty coin!!!! I'm with Kevin Drum that it sounds pretty lousy if we are actually serious, but who knows. It might technically be possible though it is so out there, I don't see if it works as much of a threat.

One of the interesting features of the platinum coin idea is that even if it does violence to the purpositive interpretation of the statute (and arguably not to the most literal and formalist reading), there may no one with both an incentive to challenge the coin-as-workaround and standing to do it.

Standing and political-question issues aside, I have a hard time believing that a Court wouldn't find the minting of a trillion dollar coin to be a capricious abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Treasury. The statute of as a whole specifies denominations for all the other coins, and none of them is higher than $50. Given that that trillion-dollar coins would lead to an absurdity—that the Treasury could fund the entire function of government through magic coins without needing to collect taxes or sell debt—and possibly be an unconstitutional delegation of power, I think the most reasonable reading of the statute, as a whole and in context, is that the Treasury can't mint trillion dollar coins.

This is all moot, thankfully, since Obama is way too smart to float the platinum coin idea, at least publicly, since it would be a political disaster for him if he did.

I'd hope the courts would have sense enough to stay out of any dispute regarding the coin. Personally, I think it's legal, but that does require a remarkably literal reading of the statute. Of course, that's what all the wingnuts pretend to want on other occasions...

Some alternatives occurred to me today. As I understand it, the SecTreas can't print money; only the Fed can do that. Assuming the Fed demands assets in return for money, consider these:

1. Current US gold holdings are about $420 billion on the open market. That would cover a lot of expenses, and it's readily marketable if the Fed needs to worry about inflation.

2. The bonds in the SS trust fund have a current value of roughly $5 trillion. That would cover everything and then some. Turn them over to the Fed and there'd be plenty of dollars.

Even if the judiciary decided to look the other way, the scheme is so fundamentally unserious that it would likely spell the end of our status as a reserve currency, investors everywhere would flee dollars for fear of whatever our government might think to do next.

Which is going to happen eventually, anyway, but this would accelerate it.

A trillion dollar coin is no more absurd than quotidian currency if we all agree that such things can have such value.

The problem is that the trillion dollar coin exposes the arbitrary nature of money, thereby calling the whole system of agreement into question. It's crazy that a single coin could represent so much, but then it's crazy that a coin represents anything at all, especially if belief in that value prevents someone from being able to survive.

"Which is going to happen eventually, anyway, but this would accelerate it."

be countered with "In God We Trust" embossed on that Trillion Dollar Coin? Maybe the NFL and its Super Bowl advertisers would pay big bucks to use that Trillion Dollar Coin for the traditional Super Bowl coin toss.

This throws the baby out with the bathwater. Money isn't "arbitrary" in practice. It is a means of exchange that represents things like such and such amount of work or whatever. Like words, it is abstract on some level, but reasonable.

The coin idea is silly since it is just not sensible under the perfectly reasonable monetary system set up from ancient times. It might be technically literally valid, but the law doesn't quite work that way. Even for Scalia.

Stephen Colbert came back last night having survived the Mayan prophecy with a segment on the "Coin" in which he suggests that instead of Obama or Bo(eh)ner being depicted on the face of the "Coin" show the "Charmin' Bears." Go to the video for his reasoning.

I don't agree that money is arbitrary. Money has value because you can pay your taxes with it. As long as that remains the case -- and the platinum coin won't affect that -- then the physical nature of "money" doesn't change that.

As for being the world's reserve currency, that won't be affected by the coin, Brett's Y2K hysteria notwithstanding. Two things, though, might have that effect:

1. Failure to pay our debts because Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling. Brett has adopted the usual right wing tactic of accusing others of that which his side is actually guilty.

Gerard, are you actually giving credence to this dictatorial nonsense?

Article I grants Congress the power to create money and to determine its value.

Congress unconstitutionally delegated its power to determine the money supply to the Fed.

Article II nowhere grants the executive the power to determine the money supply.

The cited statute simply allows Treasury to coin the bullion it possesses, not to create money of any denomination. Treasury can only create the money requested by the Fed.

To date, our outlaw President has limited himself to declining to enforce laws (even his own Obamacare) against supporters and favored voter groups.

If the President now takes the affirmative act of seizing an enumerated power of Congress, confident that his allies in Congress will support the seizure and then prevent his impeachment, we have well and truly crossed the Rubicon toward dictatorship.

Even if the judiciary decided to look the other way, the scheme is so fundamentally unserious that it would likely spell the end of our status as a reserve currency, investors everywhere would flee dollars for fear of whatever our government might think to do next.

# posted by Brett : 7:09 AM

Isn't that exactly what will happen if the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling?

i doubt that the treasury could mint a trillion dollar coin: they are probably limited by the actual need to cover expenses (a couple billion a day) so maybe some billion dollar coins weekly until the issue is resolved.

As for legality, the president is required faithfully execute all the laws, not some of them, and when they are in conflict find an interpretation that also conforms to the Constitution. The debt ceiling caps "public debt" (I am not really clear that we should call intra-agency SS debt "public" as it pertains to the Constitution. I also think that excluding amounts owed to vendors for services performed (which also fits a definition of public debt) is problematic... but setting those issues aside what options are left?

I also don't agree that *selling* the gold stock is practical: as soon as its announced the market value of gold drops precipitously since the US is the largest holder of Gold Reserves. Selling gold or oil to the Fed or issuing commodity-backed certificates? How does that get around Congressional authority overseeing coinage and money?

Maybe what the Treasury should do (as it has in the past) is issue gold-backed certificates worth a trillion dollars but backed by only the current stock of 8332 tons of gold. That puts the US back on a defacto gold standard with a commensurate massive devaluation of the dollar. Minting platinum coins probably does the same thing.

To clarify my suggestion, I didn't mean to say that the government should sell the gold on the open market. It might or might not crash the price by doing so.

No, what I meant was that the government could transfer the gold to the Fed as an asset in return for dollars. This could be done at the current market price for gold because the Fed would have no need to sell the gold any time soon.

" the government could transfer the gold to the Fed as an asset in return for dollars."

I do not see this as materially different that the govt issuing large denomination gold-backed certificates in the 1930s. It puts the US on a defacto gold (or platinum) standard which fixes the value of the dollar in terms of metal. If the US minted a 1 oz trillion dollar coin, its would be telling the financial markets the dollar is worth 1 trillionth of an oz of platinum (currently, ~1600/oz). If the treasury transferred the gold to the Fed at 1600/oz, then the maybe the Fed has to defend the 1600/oz... and/or sterilize the money that was just printed and handed to the treasury (by selling the gold, or selling some other assets like US treasury bonds to raise $$). Now, if the fed sells bonds, maybe bonds plunge and interest rates rise (which counters the Fed desired 0 interest rates). Either way, bonds and/or gold prices plunge, which puts the Fed in the position of defending one or both to prevent a recession (or inflation).

I dont take the coin seriously, any more than i take the debt ceiling seriously. Its mutually assured destruction.

The Fed doesn't need to do any of those things. Gold is just an asset, like MBS or anything else the Fed buys. Neither the gold nor the platinum would put the US on some de facto standard, any more than selling wheat to the Fed would put us on a wheat standard; they're just commodities.

The Fed has a legal price stability mandate. Printing (minting) money is widely considered stimulative if not outright inflationary. There are a wide range of opinions on *how* inflationary, for example Krugman thinks not very inflationary, whereas someone like Peter Schiff will think the US will become the next Zimbabwe. The Fed would almost certainly cease the current "quantitative easing" and sell its stock of US treasuries. Some on the FOMC already think the current QE program is too much and the government raising a trillion dollars in Seigniorage revenue would fan those fears.

When it comes to the government minting money to pay for goods and services, all backed by a shiny metal, there is no such thing as "just an asset." The perception of a slippery slope, not the actual legality, is what will ultimately determine the outcome (that is, how permanent the markets view the seigniorage, and whether it will be quickly withdrawn in favor of bonds backed by taxes). As I said, minting a trillion dollar coin (or issuing gold certificates backed by gold reserves) will for many people hearken back to the 1930s devaluation of the dollar in terms of gold because the govt is saying in essence the dollar is worth a trillionth of an oz of platinum. A return to a gold (or metallic) standard is something a large contingent of the financial community have been arguing will happen for years - especially since the Fed started buying bonds in 2008.

* In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). What is unusual in this case is that the law gives the Secretary discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

The provisions of 31 USC § 5112 must be read in para materia within its provisions and with other statutes.

31 USC § 5112 creates two different coins - coins meant for circulation and numismatic coins meant for sale to raise money for the Treasury. See 31 USC § 5134.

31 USC § 5112(a) sets out the coins it permits Treasury to issue for circulation. No trillion dollar coins.

Various other provisions of § 5112 permit Treasury to strike numismatic coins for sale. Numismatic coins come in two flavors - proof versions of the standard coins sold as collector items and bullion coins for sale for their value as precious metal.

Under 31 USC § 5112(k), Treasury is only authorized to use platinum to strike numismatic coins - proof or bullion.

Treasury can indeed strike a platinum Obama coin denominated for $1 trillion and attempt to sell it to the public for $1 trillion. Good luck with that.

* The accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.

But an Obama coin is not like a quarter authorized by 31 USC § 5112(a). Because Congress did not authorize the proposed platinum Obama coin to be circulated as currency, the Federal Reserve has no power to give the Treasury $1 trillion in actual federal reserve currency to spend in exchange for the coin.

* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

Notice that Diehl is not even assuming that the Obama coin is currency and would be destroyed as soon as Congress agrees to raise the credit limit for the national credit card. This is an accounting scam.

* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

Ah, but what if Congress declines to continue borrowing money and Treasury is adding another trillion dollars of Obama coin fiat currency to the money supply every 9 months?

Robert Mugabe financed his government by printing and spending fiat money just the way Diehl is suggesting here, with the expected hyper-inflationary results.

dwb, the "coin" idea isn't and can't be inflationary. I think there may some confusion about the purpose of the "coin", so let me back up.

Congress has authorized spending up to $X. It has authorized borrowing up to $Y. X => Y. I don't know the exact dollar amount by which X => Y, but it's not large in relative terms -- perhaps 2% of GDP.

The purpose of the "coin" is NOT to allow the president to engage in future spending unauthorized by Congress. That would be unconstitutional. The sole purpose of the "coin" is to close the gap between X and Y.

This has a couple of consequences. First, closing that gap wouldn't be inflationary unless you believe that the spending already authorized by Congress would be (and it isn't, or it would have shown up already).

Second, once the dispute is resolved, the coin will simply be returned to the Treasury and melted down. This means a small increase in the money supply in the short term, but again, not larger than Congress already authorized. That small increase wouldn't cause inflation under current conditions, and if it did the Fed has plenty of tools to bring it under control.

As for concerns about "metals" and "perceptions", that gives credence to wingnut fantasies about metallic currencies, but has nothing to do with basic economics. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

yes, i agree that the coin can be minted only to cover existing appropriations net of revenues.

But, spending money without raising taxes is at least stimulative, and whether its "inflationary" depends on whether the "coin" is permanent or temporary addition to the monetary base (market perceptions\expectations count most here); And whether you think the economy is at full employment right now.

2% of GDP is a pretty big stimulus (the payroll tax cut was a lot smaller, think of spending money without raising taxes - whether deficit spending is inflationary depends on a lot of things).

To conclude that the coin is not inflationary one has to suppose quite a few things: suppose the economy has substantial slack; suppose the dispute is resolved quickly; suppose that the promise to melt the coin is credible.

There are many economists, some on the FOMC who think unemployment is structural and we are at full employment. I am not one, but the Fed right now is buying about 85 bn/month in bonds. I would expect that to cease and reverse to the extent of any seigniorage revenue.

Now, sure, in a world governed by "normal rules" sure it might not be inflationary.

To suppose that the coin is not inflationary is asking me to suppose some contradictory things: Congress has just sent us over a cliff, the President has just started minting coins to finance the govt, yet somehow everyone will wake up in a day or two and bargain so the coin is melted immediately, and we return to normalcy quickly.

Nuclear war and mutually assured destruction only work if the enemy believes you are willing to denonate 12,000 bombs even though 20 will do nicely. right now, POTUS looks poised to call the House's bluff. If the House looks poised to call the Presidents bluff and send us into potential default, I expect to hear from the Prez about the dire hyperinflationary consequences of fullfilling his constitutional duty and avoid default. And lets face it, whos more afraid of hyperinflation than those right wing Austrians who want us back on the gold standard.

In reality, the coin(s) is only getting minted if we have gone well beyond the "normal" rules of politics, and a pretty standard feature of banana republics has been hyperinflation.

Congress has authorized spending up to $X. It has authorized borrowing up to $Y. X => Y. I don't know the exact dollar amount by which X => Y, but it's not large in relative terms -- perhaps 2% of GDP.

If Congress stops borrowing, the difference between spending and tax revenues is currently $1.3 t annually (soon to be $200 to $300 b more when Obamacare comes fully online). This is roughly 9% (soon to be 11%) of GDP, which is an unheard of amount when we are not paying for a world war.

The purpose of the "coin" is NOT to allow the president to engage in future spending unauthorized by Congress. That would be unconstitutional. The sole purpose of the "coin" is to close the gap between X and Y.

The president also may not create money unauthorized by Congress.

This has a couple of consequences. First, closing that gap wouldn't be inflationary unless you believe that the spending already authorized by Congress would be (and it isn't, or it would have shown up already).

The deficit is currently paid for by borrowing money out of the current supply. The Obama coin plan is calling for coining new fiat money to pay for the overspending, dramatically expanding a money supply already expanded by the Fed. This is what Weimar and Zimbabwe did.

1. The federal reserve has repeatedly been held constitutional over many decades.

We do not need to rehash the progressive courts' erasure and rewrite of the Constitution to create the Fed and the rest of the regulatory state.

2. Congress has delegated its authority to coin money to the US mint since the late 1780's.

No, Congress created the Mint to produce coins requested by the Federal Reserve Banks for circulation.

Congress did not delegate its power to determine the money supply to the Mint or the President. Indeed, the Fed was designed as an independent agency to keep this power away from a president like Obama.

Bart, I don't mind you arguing that longstanding legal doctrines are wrong, but when that's your argument, it is a bait and switch to then say Obama is an ououtrageous unprecedented dictator. There's nothing outrageous or unprecedented about Congress delegating the power to control the money supply.

And the mint predates the federal reserve and has been given statutory authority for over 225 years. And it has minted commemorative (non-circulating) coins and proofs for all that time. You are just pulling things out of your butt here.

Bart, I don't mind you arguing that longstanding legal doctrines are wrong, but when that's your argument, it is a bait and switch to then say Obama is an ououtrageous unprecedented dictator.

The constitutionality of Congress' delegation of its power to direct the money supply to the Fed has nothing to do with my observation that an executive seizure of that power or Congress' non-delegated power to borrow would make the President a dictator.

And the mint predates the federal reserve and has been given statutory authority for over 225 years.

Congress has always told the Mint what to coin.

Before the Fed, Congress told the Mint how much to coin through various legal tender acts.

After delegating this power to the Fed, each Federal Reserve bank requests bills and coins.

"But, spending money without raising taxes is at least stimulative, and whether its "inflationary" depends on whether the "coin" is permanent or temporary addition to the monetary base"

I don't think anyone sees it as more than temporary, for the reasons I gave above. And if the sole purpose is to match Congressional spending with the ability to pay, there's no possible mechanism for inflation. The markets already account for spending authorizations.

"2% of GDP is a pretty big stimulus"

The various QE measures taken by the Fed are much larger in total -- perhaps 10 times larger -- yet there's no inflation.

"the Fed right now is buying about 85 bn/month in bonds. I would expect that to cease and reverse to the extent of any seigniorage revenue."

Which would neutralize any inflationary impact of the coin.

Yes, if the "coin" were used in flagrantly unconstitutional ways, and if the Fed completely ignored its obligations, inflation could result. Lots of bad things can happen in all kinds of ways, including failing to pay the debts Congress has authorized. That's the obvious and much greater risk.

Our yodeler reverts to his usual Chicken Little "The sky Is Falling" rant in the preceding related thread with this:

"The fact that normally reasonable people are even giving credence to suggestions that the President may seize Congress' powers to borrow or coin money shows how close to the Rubicon of dictatorship our fading Republic is moving."

Our yodeler follows up in this thread with:

"The Obama coin plan is calling for coining new fiat money to pay for the overspending, dramatically expanding a money supply already expanded by the Fed. This is what Weimar and Zimbabwe did."

Of course our yodeler ignores the BLACKMAIL efforts of the GOP in Congress to hold the economy hostage with the debt ceiling. Keep in mind that it was acts of Congress, not all of which Pres. Obama signed into law, that is responsible for the imposing debt ceiling crisis. The GOP in Congress cannot directly undo acts of prior Congresses (vecause it lacks the votes) so they take the backdoor approach.

Those with access to the NYTimes Website should check out Paul Krugman's recent column and blog posts on the "coining" of America. Krugman's latest describes the morality ploy of the GOP.

So our yodeler cries out "The Sky Is Falling," whereas it is only the debt ceiling that is collapsing.

Krugman concedes he is not a constitutional scholar, so he relies upon Larry Tribe. Not too shabby. If the GOP in Congress withdraws the BLACKMAIL threat, then perhaps there may be a mint on the economy's pillow rather than a minted Trillion $ Coin. But if the GOP in Congress continues with its BLACKMAIL, then rather than crossing the Rubicon the economy will survive over the "Platinumcon." [No family jewels jokes, please!]

Of course our yodeler ignores the BLACKMAIL efforts of the GOP in Congress to hold the economy hostage with the debt ceiling. Keep in mind that it was acts of Congress, not all of which Pres. Obama signed into law, that is responsible for the imposing debt ceiling crisis. The GOP in Congress cannot directly undo acts of prior Congresses (vecause it lacks the votes) so they take the backdoor approach.

The new GOP House was indeed elected to reverse that spending spree and more.

However, the President Obama has threatened to not only shut down the government, but to unconstitutionally default on the debt and to illegally stop SS payments from SS tax revenues unless the GOP House not only allows baseline spending to increase, but also allow Obama to pay for all this overspending on the national credit card.

This blackmail has indeed worked and the GOP House caved during the 2011 fiscal cliff and debt limit confrontations to allow spending to rise to $3.8 trillion. The so called sequester was kicked down the road.

I have little faith that the GOP will not again cave to blackmail and Obamacare will drive spending well above $4t next year.

You may soon have another proposed Presidential seizure of power to discuss. The VP just threatened unspecified "executive action" to achieve the broad spectrum firearm prohibitions and limits his task force has been formulating.

Perhaps, Mr. Obama may start a new presidential fashion trend by wearing a wreath of olive leaves on his head...

And if Obama were to wear a wreath of olive branches, how might we expect our yodeler and other gun yahoos to react? Obama's message might be "Peace be with you." Might the response be "Here's a piece for you!"?

" ... then we indeed need to start considering Second Amendment solutions."

seem's intentionally vague about what might constitute "Second Amendment solutions." [Have the Heller/McCarthy five extended solutions beyond the home?] I assume our yodeler is speaking as an NRA approved "A Good Gun Guy." In any event, our yodeler has demonstrated over the years at this Blog that he is a quickdraw aficionado.

BB, if Obama does everything Biden is threatening, it won't just be DePalma who takes up arms, you may be sure of that. These are proposals which couldn't be democratically enacted even back when the gun control movement had something resembling real public support, and he's going to impose them by fiat NOW?

That's the stuff of revolution, or there's no point to having a 2nd amendment.

"If President Obama starts to seize the powers discussed here and is not impeached, then we indeed need to start considering Second Amendment solutions."

I've enjoyed our respectful discussions, but this is unnecesarily inflammatory and disturbing. "Second Amendment solutions" should not be considered in matters of reasonable disagreements concerning interpretation of vague statutes.

"It is not the quantity of executive actions that is important, but rather their quality."

This takes us into unmeasurables. Who is to say the quality of the immigration waiver EO by Obama is of such a different quality than, say, Bush the Elder's waiver on Chinese immigrants in response to Tianemman Square or Bush the Younger's waiver of a host of laws to build his immigration fence or his EO creating the Faith Based Programs Office?

Are our dyslexic duo, Brat and Bert, unconcerned about how their comments may be judged by authorities with respect to arms limitations in the dicta in both Heller and McDonald? Keep in mind that the Heller/McDonald five have yet to go beyond the home in the Second Amendment context of guns/selfdefense..

BD: "If President Obama starts to seize the powers discussed here and is not impeached, then we indeed need to start considering Second Amendment solutions."

Mr. W: I've enjoyed our respectful discussions, but this is unnecesarily inflammatory and disturbing. "Second Amendment solutions" should not be considered in matters of reasonable disagreements concerning interpretation of vague statutes.

My friend, the Constitution is very clear concerning which powers belong to Congress and which belong to the President, and which liberties may not be infringed by either.

There is nothing reasonable or even "unnecessarily inflammatory" about a President seizing Congress' powers or infringing on our liberties by decree. Those are the acts of a dictator.

The Constitution provides two remedies for dictators - impeachment and those called for by the Declaration of Independence and implied by the Second Amendment.

Currently, the only elected officials who are actively supporting these outrageous proposals are Pelosi, Reid and Nadler. (It almost makes you miss Robert KKK Bird. The man would at least defend the prerogatives of Congress.) Mr. Obama has not given any indication that he wants to cross that Rubicon. Thus, our discussion remains academic

I pray it stays that way. Revolutions are usually truly terrible things.

My question is why everyone here is not outraged and calling out anyone who would propose such acts of dictatorship?

Mark Field: "I don't agree that money is arbitrary. Money has value because you can pay your taxes with it."

There's no doubt that money has value, but the value that money has is entirely arbitrary. Joe is right to say that "money isn't 'arbitrary' in practice. We have a belief that money represents something tangible (X amount of gold, X amount of labor), but the value associated with those things is also a social construct. If we hope to operate within that construct, of course we pay our taxes with the amount of money that we're asked to provide.

Our willingness to entertain a social fiction does not mean that value is ever anything but arbitrary. Finding a path past the seemingly global debt concerns and nation's credit ratings and all the other nonsense may involve a reassessment of our value systems.

We have the ability to ensure that everyone in the world has food, sanitation, housing, health coverage, access to a full education, etc. Saying that there isn't enough money to pay for all that is ridiculous, as money isn't the problem. The idea that you have to have money to do those things--that's the problem.

"Probably because it's obvious to everyone here that you would support those actions if it was Cheney/Bush doing it instead of Obama."

Kind of like you'd support a re-imposition of slavery, if it were Obama instead of Bush who did it?

No, you're quite wrong. If Bush and Cheney had tried this, I'd have been glad to see their dead bodies hanging from a lamppost. In fact, one of the few things I thought tolerable about Bush was that he wasn't stupid enough to try something like this. (Even if he WAS stupid enough to want to.)

Anybody who doesn't have a line beyond which they'd be willing to violently oppose the government, is just a slave waiting for somebody to come along and fit his chains to him. That's what Biden thinks of you, BB.

I see my 4 year old has been up to a little commenting. Wonder if there are 4 year old blogs I could introduce him to?

"Anybody who doesn't have a line beyond which they'd be willing to violently oppose the government, is just a slave waiting for somebody to come along and fit his chains to him. "

might depend upon the line that is drawn. One might question any line drawn by Brett based upon his comments at this and other blogs revealing many personal matters. Presumably he would rely upon his arsenal, not of words, but arms. And Brett should remember how the slaves in colonial days and beyond in America were chained under the force of arms of a few and how the slave conditions were maintained by the force of arms of individual slave owners (in the named of self defense and protection of property) with the protective provisions of the Framers/Ratifiers Constitution. Of course the Second Amendment was not available to chattels. Brett's beef obviously is with the changing demographics and their impact upon angry old white men fearing they might be enslaved.

And note that our yodeler, rather astutely (he is, technically, an "officer of the court"), has not elaborated on what might constitute his suggested "Second Amendment solutions." Following Brett's theme, do we really need to read between the lines?

There's no doubt that money has value, but the value that money has is entirely arbitrary.

In a free market, money is merely a proxy for goods available for sale and the value of a unit of currency is determined by that measure. For example, if there is $15 in the money supply to buy 10 gadgets produced by the economy, it would take $1.50 to buy a gadget.

The only time money has an arbitrary value is when the state attempts to set prices for goods, but these best efforts of mice and socialists always fail in the end.

There is a fundamental difference between a president who followed the Constitution by obtaining a declaration of war (AUMF) to prosecute a war with which you disagreed because the president was a Republican and a president either violating his constitutional duty to enforce the law against his friends or seizing powers denied him by the Constitution.

Acknowledging that the president does not have the power to borrow or to coin money and that such an act would likely lead to impeachment, tax prof Edward D. Kleinbard offers an alternative scheme to avoid Congress power of the purse - scrip.

Kleinbard proposes that Obama follow California's lead and have the Treasury issue registered warrants promising to pay money money owed the bearer when cash becomes available. He notes that banks to a limited extent honored the warrants and paid the bearer cash in exchange.

You claim that using SERE coercive interrogation techniques against foreign unlawful enemy combatants is a violation of the torture treaty and statute, the treaty/statute and the Obama Justice Department disagreed.

It's not that I wouldn't have a line I would cross in opposing my government (I'd like to think I would be in the Free French camp rather than the Vichy camp) it's just that I think talk of killing people (which is what you're getting at is) is horrible when the disagreements are at the level they are at and when we have what seem to be normaly operating political mechanisms to turn to. We just had an election in which this "Ceasar" seemed perfectly willing to step down if the people did not like his policies, and this "Ceasar" also had his opposition re-elected to one of the Houses of Congress. The Courts have not been shy about handing this administration defeats. Whatever the line is where one should forcibly oppose their government, we are far, far from it.

Take the current situation. Would Obama become a "Ceasar" if he coined the platinum coin? This seems bizarre, the statute in question can reasonably read to allow that. This is the stuff of tyrants? We're not talking dismissing Congress, halting elections and concentration camps here, but simple statutory interpretation.

The point you put up a fight, is where somebody demands you give up the power to put up a fight. Any later than that, and fighting becomes impossible; The decision to permit yourself to be disarmed IS the decision that you won't resist tyranny.

This is beyond absurd, these are measures the gun control movement did not have the political clout to enact at it's highest point of public support, which Obama vigously denied any interest in before the election, and we're supposed to believe it would be legitimate for them to be imposed by executive fiat?

I think, however, that Biden's threats are empty, Obama does not want civil war.

"Brett, you dumbasses thought that invading Iraq was justified. You supported torture."

I stated that I thought the rationales liberals were using to oppose the war were lame, and on torture you're just imagining things, or perhaps confusing me with somebody else.

I agree talk of a Trillion Dollar coin is pointless: The coin would demonstrate our government to be so fundamentally unserious that creditors would flee us, and the President does not want to lose the capacity to borrow. He is far more likely to start usurping Congressional powers in the area of borrowing and taxation, as he already did for waging war and imigration.

That this would be impeachable is irrelevant to him, the only thing he really is relying on the legislature for, is enough votes in the Senate to escape conviction. He knows that, like Clinton, his party's historians will record any impeachment of him that fails as a badge of courage.

I'm expecting a big step towards dictatorship in the next few years. I only hope it can be reversed to some extent after 2016.

"There is a fundamental difference between a president who followed the Constitution by obtaining a declaration of war (AUMF) to prosecute a war with which you disagreed because the president was a Republican and a president either violating his constitutional duty to enforce the law against his friends or seizing powers denied him by the Constitution."

Beware people who have demonstrated in the past a propensity to have their strong partisanship lead them to overconfident appraisals of situations favorable to their side that are then demonstrated to be, if not flatly wrong, at least more complex than was asserted, and double beware such when they advocate drastic action based on that!

Just as you are so sure that Obama is acting as a Ceasar for considering (iirc he himself has not even acknowleged considering the move) taking advantage of a literal reading of a Congressional statute, for extending waivers to some groups to the ACA (iirc more union petitions for waivers have been denied than granted) and deferring deportation action on a class of immigrants there were folks who were absolutely certain that Bush had transformed into a Hitler for his disregard of the FISA laws, his administration's selective use/presentation of information in support of a War that turne out badly, his use of his executive powers to 'reward his friends' in the faith based community by directing government funds to them, his EPA's disregard for the Clean Air Act it was supposed to be upholding (recent opinions by the DC Circuit slapped down even more Bush-era regs here), his bending of torture treaties and conventions, etc., etc.

Simplifying things into inflammatory hyperbole may make some things in life easier, but that doesn't make them correct.

I think talk of killing people (which is what you're getting at is) is horrible when the disagreements are at the level they are at and when we have what seem to be normaly operating political mechanisms to turn to.

Agreed.

The Constitution's political remedy for the president seizing congressional power is impeachment, which is what I and now Professor Kleinbard offered as the first recourse. However, what is your proposed remedy if the president's political party is so corrupt that its congressional leaders are actually lobbying the president to seize congressional powers for partisan and ideological gain and would refuse to impeach?

Take the current situation. Would Obama become a "Ceasar" if he coined the platinum coin? This seems bizarre, the statute in question can reasonably read to allow that. This is the stuff of tyrants? We're not talking dismissing Congress, halting elections and concentration camps here, but simple statutory interpretation.

I broke down the statute for you and it in no way authorizes the President to create currency. Indeed, the authors of this scam do not claim that the statute delegates such a power. They simply assume that the Fed will exchange legal tender federal reserve notes for this coin.

If a president seizes Congress' powers and rules by decree, why would he or she need to dissolve Congress or halt elections, having reduced Congress to a nullity?

It's always a safe bet to assume that the GOP will cave. This has less to do with who funds the GOP, than to do with so many of the GOP's office holders being ideological kin to Democrats, and only pretending to have conservative principles, because they had to in order to win election in Republican districts.

And the GOP is no more or less threatening default than the Democrats. All the House has to do is pass a debt ceiling increase which includes modest spending cuts, and you will see a default as a result of Democrats refusing to vote for it.

Mr. Obama took the first step in that direction when he refused to enforce laws against political supporters (Obamacare waivers for not only unions, but businesses he did not want opposing him in the election) and to buy votes (implementing the amnesty and green cards for an entire class of illegal immigrants which Congress defeated in the Dream Act).

IF Mr. Obama created money, borrowed money or abridged the right to keep and bear arms by decree as advocated by his supporters, then he has take the final step over the Rubicon. No one has claimed that Obama has taken this step and hopefully he never does.

What deeply concerns me is the silence among those who claim to support the Constitution and oppose dictatorship when Obama took his first step and then now as his supporters urge him to take the final step across the Rubicon.

Making excuses for Caesarism (Bush did it too and its just a matter of legal interpretation) only facilitates Caesarism.

"I broke down the statute for you and it in no way authorizes the President to create currency"

31 USC § 5112(k)seems to literally and unequivocably leave this to the discretion of the Treasury. Your contention is that this seemingly explicit, unqualified grant of discretion for such coincs has to be read with 31 USC § 5134 and that provisions limits it to coins for sale. Even were you correct here (and I'm not convinced you are), to think otherwise is the stuff of reasonable disagreement on an issue interpetation of statute, hardly 'tyranny.' The DC Circuit recently slapped down yet more Bush era EPA regs on the Clean Air Act. This means the Bush administration's interpretation of the law and its enforcement was contrary to the law; does this mean tyranny and Bush's failure to comply with and enforce the law? No, this stuff happens all the time.

"what is your proposed remedy if the president's political party is so corrupt that its congressional leaders are actually lobbying the president to seize congressional powers for partisan and ideological gain and would refuse to impeach?"

For one thing, I would take it that when a national party stands behind its President then what he has done is not 'obviously' wrong and therefore likely not warranting a resort like impeachment. When officials have been caught doing something drastically wrong their party tends to flee them. So, I'd have to reconsider my conclusions to see if they suffer from partisan clouding, overconfidence, and a propensity to see things in black and white while missing important nuance.

But even were that the case, barring repression of political opposition, I would persuade my countrymen to vote this person and his party out. Our Founders seemed to think that our nation was fairly virtuous and if a leader was indeed an usurping scoundrel a majority of them would recognize it.

"Neither Bush nor any previous president in my memory did anything comparable to this"

Why are those actions by Obama not comparable to other Presidents using executive actions to engage in actions that were controversial (either because they were seen as 'refusing to enforce the law' [Bush I's deportation deferral of Chinese nationals], were considered in violation of the law [Bush II's FISA and enhanced interrogation techniques actions], ellegedly motivated by political favoritism [Bush's Faith Based Programs] and/or skirted the Constitution or treaties [all of this alleged at several of the already named programs]). You say Obama's controversial actions were worse and cross the line into tyranny, but opponents of Bush say the same for his. Who is to say who is correct?

I have faith in the Founders and the system they set up. Checks and balances are there, and if someone were truly acting in a dictatorial or corrupt fashion this system would, in my opinion, block, strike down or impeach it's way back to normal. Neither Bush nor Obama has been able to do whatever they like. We're so far away from tyranny it's not even visible.

Partisans see it differently of course. They are so much more to the opposing side to what the other side sees that the latter's actions become inexplicable to the former unless they are formulated into terms of evil usurpations and corruptions of the good rather than reasonable disagreements about fine matters. But this says more about partisan lenses than it does what is going on.

BTW-I'm not without my criticisms of this administration. I think his military action in Libya was in violation of the War Powers Act. I think executive level firings should have followed the incredible negligence that went into the Fast and Furious program. I think his extra-judicial killings were immoral and likely unconstitutional. I think his stimulus package was wasteful, his health care program bad and his repeated calls for infrastructure spending are boondoggles.

The DC Circuit recently slapped down yet more Bush era EPA regs on the Clean Air Act. This means the Bush administration's interpretation of the law and its enforcement was contrary to the law; does this mean tyranny and Bush's failure to comply with and enforce the law? No, this stuff happens all the time.

Congress never established any standards in the CAA and delegated that power to the regulatory bureaucracy, thus, the bureaucratic decrees under Bush could not have violated the CAA.

What happened is that the Bush EPA attempted to impose less onerous regulations than the Clinton EPA and the courts (as is generally the case) sided with the more invasive regulations.

This is not in any way comparable to Mr. Obama's waivers of Obamacare and immigration law.

BD: "what is your proposed remedy if the president's political party is so corrupt that its congressional leaders are actually lobbying the president to seize congressional powers for partisan and ideological gain and would refuse to impeach?"

Mr. W: For one thing, I would take it that when a national party stands behind its President then what he has done is not 'obviously' wrong and therefore likely not warranting a resort like impeachment.

You have to be kidding.

The Roman Senate appointed dictators on several occasions, but this approval did not make the appointees anything other than dictators.

But even were that the case, barring repression of political opposition, I would persuade my countrymen to vote this person and his party out.

This is where our discussion gets interesting.

What happens when a majority or even just a plurality elects and reelects tyrannical representatives?

Is revolution then justified to defend the Republic established by the Constitution and to protect our rights in spite of the results of our democratic process?

This is not a new question. Historians believe that only about a third of the colonial population in 1776 supported the revolution.

Furthermore, you again skipped over what many consider to be the more egregious legal violations of some previous administrations (such as the FISA and possibly constitutional violations of Bush II's wiretapping program as well as the enhanced interrogation program) and examples the use of waivers of extant laws (the border fence project) and previous EO's deferring deportation of entire categories (Bush I).

"You have to be kidding."

You're ignoring the lynchpin of my argument: in our two party system any party which ignores obvious egregious behavior is going to lose elections (because our populace can be trusted not to support such behavior) and/or be slapped down by the Courts (remember, if these are as egregious acts as you say we have a judiciary with plenty of GOP appointees that would not shirk from ruling against them).

"Historians believe that only about a third of the colonial population in 1776 supported the revolution."

Isn't that a minority view (usually based on a certain reading of a letter of Adams)?

"When speaking to those who likely support tyrants, it pays to be discrete."

Our yodeler seems to compare himself with John Adams back in 1776. Alas, he is more aligned with the current Sam Adams in his DUI legal specialty. But our yodeler being discrete is such a stretch. No, our yodeler is not being discrete in his failure to specify what he meant by raising "Second Amendment solutions." Rather, he realizes that he shot the lip too quickly, not realizing the possible ramifications of the words he used and how they might be construed by not only regular visitors to this Blog but also authorities. Keep in mind that "Second Amendment solutions" could be broadly construed beyond Obama's undisclosed possible Executive Orders addressing slaughter by guns. Perhaps our yodeler is merely making word-play in the nature of Sherlock Holmes' "seven percent solution" in anticipation of his next work of Friction.

BD: "Congress never established any standards in the CAA and delegated that power to the regulatory bureaucracy, thus, the bureaucratic decrees under Bush could not have violated the CAA."

Mr. W: What? The court struck down the decrees because the decree "ignores the plainmeaning of the statute"

The particular case that you now cite simply held that the Bush EPA "erred in applying the provisions of Subpart 1 rather than Subpart 4" of the statute.

To be comparable to the Caesarism we have been discussing, Bush would have had to declined to enforce the CAA against campaign contributors or voting groups whose support he was attempting to buy or simply seized the legislative power and rewrote the CAA itself.

Furthermore, you again skipped over what many consider to be the more egregious legal violations of some previous administrations (such as the FISA and possibly constitutional violations of Bush II's wiretapping program as well as the enhanced interrogation program)...

I didn't skip anything. This is your attempt to argue that Bush engages in similar Caesarism to Obama, you make it.

BTW, FISA and the suggested legislation limiting intelligence gathering interrogation to the current Army manual are both Congress' unconstitutional attempts to seize the president's CiC power.

These power plays are played both ways.

BD: "Historians believe that only about a third of the colonial population in 1776 supported the revolution."

Mr. W: Isn't that a minority view (usually based on a certain reading of a letter of Adams)?

It may or may not be a plurality view depending upon the numbers supporting the Crown.

"That’s why it is both shocking and predictable that James Yeager, the C.E.O. of a Tennessee company that trains civilians in weapons and tactical skills, posted a video online Wednesday (since removed but still viewable at rawstory.com) saying he was going to start killing people if gun control efforts moved forward. He said, and I quote:

“'I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.'”

Still further regarding our yodeler's yet to be defined "Second Amendment solutions," take a peek at Kathleen Parker's WaPo column today "Gun control proposals hardly draconian" to compare with Mr Yeager's views discussed in Charles Blow's NYTimes column. (Parker describes her connection to guns going back to her childhood, describing her father as perhaps a "gun nut" under present standards.)

Our yodeler's reference to Concord and Lexington does not provide quotation marks. Perhaps he is paraphrasing. But consider the context of the times back in those days of Concord and Lexington when the colonists (not all of them!) were protesting.the distant British government's limitations on the American colonies. Quite a bit has happened since those days of Concord and Lexington in our democratic republic. Fearing our central government is paranoia, especially since there are elections every two/four years for Congress/Executive, such voting by "We the People."

Our yodeler continues in his efforts to be "discrete" perhaps fearing what happened to Mr. Yeager for shooting off his mouth.

By the Bybee [insert your own expletives], the Second Amendment yahoos are blaming the First Amendment Speech/Press Clauses for the violence perpetrated with guns in schools and elsewhere. So might our yodeler's yet to be defined "Second Amendment solutions" include an attack (with words? with arms?) on the First Amendment's Speech/Press Clauses?

Shag: But consider the context of the times back in those days of Concord and Lexington when the colonists (not all of them!) were protesting.the distant British government's limitations on the American colonies.

Has the context really changed?

Did American freemen enjoy more liberty under the British government or today under our progressive/socialist government ruling from a distant capital?

The entire body of legal restrictions on liberty could be included in a single book during the colonial period.

Fearing our central government is paranoia, especially since there are elections every two/four years for Congress/Executive, such voting by "We the People.

Democracy?

The vast majority of laws today are enacted by an unelected bureaucracy.

The last major series of laws actually enacted by our elected Congress were opposed by a majority to plurality of the citizenry.

Now, after lying repeatedly that they would not have the government seize our firearms in order to get elected, many of our representatives safely ensconced in a distant capital are working towards doing just that.

Has the context really changed?

Our yodeler continues in his efforts to be "discrete" perhaps fearing what happened to Mr. Yeager for shooting off his mouth.

"As a side note, firearm prohibitions (like taxes) are really only for the little people and not our Credentialed Elite..."

the enemy is the Credentialed Elite, who apparently unburdened by taxes (unlike the little people) build up arsenals of arms for the purposes of what? Doing in the little people?

By the Bybee [insert your own expletives], I do not fear the government and I am not a Credentialed Elite (whatever, whoever fit that bill). But apparently our yodeler considers himself one of the little people prepared to voice his views via the Second Amendment over the First Amendment Speech/Press Clauses.

Our yodeler is getting closer to crossing the line (the Rubicon?) beyond discreteness.

"Disperse ye rabble or we will take away your concealed carry permits!"

Er, wasn't Lexington and Concord about an attempt to confiscate collectively stored militia supplies (akin to a national guard armory)? Probably not the best example for an individual rights 2ndA Proponent.

"To be comparable to the Caesarism we have been discussing, Bush would have had to declined to enforce the CAA against campaign contributors"

You're kind of making my point here; just as Obama is accuse of bending laws to help unions, which are thought to be favorable to him, Bush was accused of bending environmental laws to favor business interests which supported him.

"FISA and the suggested legislation limiting intelligence gathering interrogation to the current Army manual are both Congress' unconstitutional attempts to seize the president's CiC power"

Art. I Sec. 8 gives Congress the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Regarding FISA, apart from whether Congress has authority to make such a law that would govern in wartime there are Fourth Amendment issues in how Bush used it. But what is more interesting imo is that in the same post in which you decry executive Ceasarism you seem to support the kind of broad reading of CiC powers that would make Julius smile.

"It may or may not be a plurality view depending upon the numbers supporting the Crown"

You misunderstand me I think; I do not mean to say it was a minority view supporting Crown or rebels but that a minority of historians make the claim that the Revolution was not widely supported by the colonists. Those that do tend to place a lot of emphasis on a questionable reading of a letter written by Adams in which he seems to say that 1/3 support the crown, 1/3 the Revolution and 1/3 were undecided, but historians point out that 1. other parts of the letter suggest that the latter 1/3 Adams refers to was simply not as enthusiastic as Adams would have liked but opposed the Crown and 2. Adam's may or may not have had his finger on the pulse of the nation.

BD: "Disperse ye rabble or we will take away your concealed carry permits!"

Mr. W: Er, wasn't Lexington and Concord about an attempt to confiscate collectively stored militia supplies (akin to a national guard armory)? Probably not the best example for an individual rights 2ndA Proponent.

A government controlled militia along the lines of the national guard was known as a select militia back then. These units were almost unknown in colonial America.

In the case of Lexington and Concord, the militia was the local citizenry and they freely accessed the stored firearms to open fire on the lawful military authority of the day seeking to disarm them.

BD: "To be comparable to the Caesarism we have been discussing, Bush would have had to declined to enforce the CAA against campaign contributors"

Mr. W: You're kind of making my point here; just as Obama is accuse of bending laws to help unions, which are thought to be favorable to him, Bush was accused of bending environmental laws to favor business interests which supported him.

Once again, the dispute you raise was between two sets of executive regulations, not declining to enforce laws enacted by Congress.

BD: "FISA and the suggested legislation limiting intelligence gathering interrogation to the current Army manual are both Congress' unconstitutional attempts to seize the president's CiC power"

Art. I Sec. 8 gives Congress the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."

This is a grant of power to enact laws like the UCMJ to discipline the force, not a grant of CiC power to command the force and direct intelligence gathering.

Regarding FISA, apart from whether Congress has authority to make such a law that would govern in wartime there are Fourth Amendment issues in how Bush used it.

Actually, there are no 4th Amendment issues. The courts had repeatedly held that intelligence gathering was a reasonable search under the 4A.

But what is more interesting imo is that in the same post in which you decry executive Ceasarism you seem to support the kind of broad reading of CiC powers that would make Julius smile.

Hardly. Bush only partially restored the standard CiC powers presidents exercised before Vietnam. Even in its less intrusive form, FISA itself is unconstitutional.

"the militia was the local citizenry and they freely accessed the stored firearms"

Yes, the militia were made up of the citizenry, but my point was that these were not arms in individual's homes, they were in a central storage akin to a National Guard armory.

Let's remember what was going on then too: the provincial government had been dismissed and the Bay was essentially under martial law and occupation. There was no representative/political option.

"Once again, the dispute you raise was between two sets of executive regulations, not declining to enforce laws enacted by Congress."

Again, the court found the second set of regulations, changes of the Bush administration, to be contrary to the "plain language of the statute." It sure looks like one could argue Bush changed the regs in contravention of the laws, and in a way that would have favored interests friendly to him...

"This is a grant of power to enact laws like the UCMJ to discipline the force, not a grant of CiC power to command the force and direct intelligence gathering."

First, the UCMJ covers intelligence gathering conduct and those under the Defense department who conduct it. Are you arguing that the Art. I Sec. 8 power goes out the window if the CIC directs people under the DOD to engage in behavior it calls intelligence gathering? This seems to put a vague provision of the Constitution over a specific one. That way lies Ceasarism (btw, let's remember the context of the FISA law, post-Nixon; if you want Ceasar you have no further to look than a man who was using the pretext of national security to invoke vague CIC powers to act as a Ceasar).

"The courts had repeatedly held that intelligence gathering was a reasonable search under the 4A."

Often cases under FISA appear to have been dismissed for lack of standing or under soveriegn immunity.

Militia assembled with their own arms, other times the community or state purchased the arms, or more often it was a mix of the two. It just depended on the wealth of the individual and the government.

The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. Regardless of whether the state is acting democratically or by decree of a king, it may not seize the people's arms and and violate that right. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights.

"Militia assembled with their own arms, other times the community or state purchased the arms"

Sure, I get that, my point was that collective arms stored in a central repository for use in a militia at least nominally under provincial control is a far cry away from individually owned concealed weapons.

"Regardless of whether the state is acting democratically or by decree of a king, it may not seize the people's arms and and violate that right"

Agreed, but as long as a judicial option is open I don't think armed resistance is proper.

Prosecutorial discretion is where you decline to prosecute individual cases because of special or emergency circumstances, not where the president permanently refuses to enforce the law against an entire category of illegal immigrants and especially no when the president illegally grants affirmative privileges in violation of law.

2) Obamacare waivers:

The Obamacare legislation did not grant HHS the power to waive the statute's minimum limit or annual limit requirements. HHS was acting illegally.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/six-types-obamacare-waivers

3) Resistance to abridgments of right to keep and bear arms.

The level of resistance depends on the level of abridgment and the availability of remedy through the courts.

If the government stops at reenacting Brady Bill style prohibitions on sales without confiscation of privately owned arms, then we can wait for the courts and elections to take their course.

If instead the government attempts to confiscate constitutionally protected arms, we have an entirely different situation.

If the courts do not enter in immediate preliminary injunctions against the confiscation law as well as granting those arrested under the law release on personal recognizance and dismissals, then the people are on their own and need to consider all alternative remedies available in the Declaration of Independence and implied by the Second Amendment.

A resistance movement needs to be well aware of what the government proved itself capable of while seizing arms at Ruby Ridge and Waco and take appropriate counter-measures.

For all you government agencies who may be surveilling the internet now or in the future, this is an academic discussion and not a criminal conspiracy.

"Prosecutorial discretion is where you decline to prosecute individual cases because of special or emergency circumstances, not where the president permanently refuses to enforce the law against an entire category"

That's not correct. Not only have previous presidents granted categorical deferments in immigration, but it's certainly not unheard of for a prosecutor to set a categorical policy of not going after a certain portion of offenders. When Obama made his promise (which he broke) that he would not go after marijuana if the person was complying with state law it was an example of this.

"HHS was acting illegally"

If that's the case then suits and court defeats should happen.

"The level of resistance depends on the level of abridgment and the availability of remedy through the courts."

Perhaps we agree in principle, it's just you are drawing the line much closer than I would. Even if there were weapons 'confiscation' (outlawing certain firearms) as long as the political process and courts were working, and people could 'vote with their feet' to other jurisdications, I would call resistance a crime (legally and morally), and this is especially the case if alternative firearm possession and bearing are allowed (even Prof. Volokh, a gun rights supporter, concedes that some 'assault weapons' or magazine bans would pass muster within the 2nd).

BTW-I'm not sure that 'armed resistance' to the government is implicit in the 2nd Amendment, it could be talking about the security of our free state from foriegn threats.

Not only have previous presidents granted categorical deferments in immigration, but it's certainly not unheard of for a prosecutor to set a categorical policy of not going after a certain portion of offenders.

Examples of these previous lawless policies???

When Obama made his promise (which he broke) that he would not go after marijuana if the person was complying with state law it was an example of this.

Obama promises are nearly the same as lies and are thus not policies.

BD: "HHS was acting illegally"

Mr. W: If that's the case then suits and court defeats should happen.

Who has the standing to sue a President to make him enforce the law? That is the really pernicious element of these policies.

Our yodeler's yet to be defined Second Amendment solutions may lead to a variation on Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" (worldwide) in the form of "The Clash of Amendments" in America, especially if Second Amendment absolutism were to trump First Amendment absolutism.

At the Presidential level the link I supplied provides many examples from former administrations. Additionally, what do you think signing statements are often about? It's a statement that a President is signing a law but will not enforce certain provisions and/or will enforce it only in a certain way.

"Obama promises are nearly the same as lies and are thus not policies."

Kind of like running saying you're against nation building and then engaging in it in two nations?

"Who has the standing to sue a President to make him enforce the law?"

I would think someone who is denied a waiver could sue if the process were illegal. Of course, should I remind you that engaging in controversial conduct (which was reported to be conducte in a way to favor political friends to boot) which could not be challenged because of standing issues was the focus of charges against, for example, the Bush administration and its Faith Based Programs office (and its wiretapping for that matter).

At the Presidential level the link I supplied provides many examples from former administrations.

In short, nothing remotely comparable.

Additionally, what do you think signing statements are often about? It's a statement that a President is signing a law but will not enforce certain provisions and/or will enforce it only in a certain way.

Signing statements are presidential opinions of law, nothing more. They are apparently only important when Republicans write them.

You are welcome to offer examples of where these opinions developed into presidential policy to ignore a constitutional law similar in kind or scale to the Obamacare waivers and the Obama rewrite of immigration law.

If you cannot, and you have not come close so far, this should be the last word.

Me: At the Presidential level the link I supplied provides many examples from former administrations.

BD: In short, nothing remotely comparable."

This is what is known as 'moving the goalposts.' You asked if there any other examples of an executive action of categorical deferrment of an entire class of immigrants or, more generally, categorically not going after a class of law breakers. The link I provided has several documentable examples of precedent (Bush I's EO granting categorical deferrment to Chinese nationals being just one). Now you want to talk about whether they are 'comparable.'

"You are welcome to offer examples of where these opinions developed into presidential policy to ignore a constitutional law similar in kind or scale"

There have been findings that during the Bush administration sections of laws the President signed but objected to specifically were not being followed by the administration (see GAO report linked to below). You may want to enter us into the Land of Unmeasurables by claiming Obama's are different in some vague 'kind' or 'scale,' but the precedent of the principle of such executive action is fairly well demonstrated.

Our yodeler's yet to be defined Second Amendment solutions might be considered in the context of the NRA and its ilk's proposed "Gun Appreciation Day" timed to coincide with MLK, Jr. Day, as the NRA and its ilk relate Second Amendment rights as anti-slavery, including the long enslavement of African-Americans in America's history, despite Rev. King's non-violence approach to civil rights. Possibly this is a recruitment drive for more NRA membership. Perhaps the NRA and its ilk might expand the Civil War's failed attempted reparations of "40 acres and a mule" to "40 acres, a mule and a gun." More guns sales mean more NRA contributions from gun manufacturers. The dreaded (by old angry white guys) changes in demographics may require those in the change group to appreciate guns.

Our yodeler's yet to be defined Second Amendment solutions might be commercialized (with the help of the NRA and gun manufactures) from the bottom up by franchising to the little people (whom our yodeler apparently wishes to protect from the Credentialed Elite) financial opportunities with:

"GUNS R U.S.!"

franchises. [Query: Can someone show me how to reverse the "R"? Or might this result in a copyright infringement?]

Might our yodeler's Second Amendment solutions be resolved by him and his little people by means of self- or NRA-help or by SCOTUS? Might it take SCOTUS too long to come up with solutions? If so, what can we expect from our yodeler and his little people?

9 out of 29 is about 1/3, that's hardly something to crow about. Remember, this was a sample drawn from hundreds of signing statements;of course such a sample is likely to have mostly mundane matters, that's what most laws have in them. The border patrol one was not simply a directive to submit a report or seek permission.

All I was trying to show there was that executive discretion in enforcing parts of laws is common. 1 out of 3...

As far as being comparable of course you have to look at the big news items that have small chances of falling into a small sample. The Bush I EO on Chinese immigrants is an example of the categorical precedent you asked for, as far as the size and scope is concerned we come back to where I started: you may think the Obama immigration referal to be the worse 'executive not enforcing the law the way it is written' is obviously the more egregious, but partisans on the other side of you can make a case that Bush's Faith Based executive action, his practices under (and outside of) FISA, or his 'interpretation' of what the UMCJ would allow in interrogations or tribunals are equally egregious.

Mr. W: 9 out of 29 is about 1/3, that's hardly something to crow about.

The denominator in this fraction is not 29, but rather all the hundreds of observations in dozens of signing statements. The reviewers could only find 29 they could actually measure.

All I was trying to show there was that executive discretion in enforcing parts of laws is common. 1 out of 3...

Now the denominator is the number of laws in the US Code and regs in the Federal Register.

This is not helping your straw man argument that executive discretion is common, nevertheless disprove my point that no prior President has ever declined to enforce the law against his supporters and voters in kind or the scope of the Obamacare waivers or imposing the failed Dream Act by executive decree. I will not even get into the illegal affirmative decrees like issuing green cards and imposing various taxes ("fees") not authorized by Congress in Obamacare.

You are correct, the center right electorate did not fire Obama, they stayed home instead of voting for Romney.

Now we all will pay the price.

To that extent, Mr. Obama is indeed my president.

I am presently shopping for brokers so I can park my retirement savings in a variety of precious metals, sort of like China moving out of T-Bills and into gold and the Germans shipping home their gold from the Fed and France.

Yes it is. It's a sample. For example, if you called 100 people and asked them who they were going to vote for in the next Colorado governor's election, and 45 said candidate X, the denominator would be 100, the numerator 45. You can argue the sample is not representative, but the denominator is 29.

BTW-the precedent for the green cards is discussed in the link I originally put up.

BD: This is not helping your straw man argument that executive discretion is common, nevertheless disprove my point that no prior President has ever declined to enforce the law against his supporters and voters in kind or the scope of the Obamacare waivers or imposing the failed Dream Act by executive decree.

Mr. W's selectively edited portion of above quote: "no prior President has ever declined to enforce the law against his supporters"

Please do not misrepresent what I post.

Well, just for starters the EPA under the Bush administration seemed awful friendly to businesses regulated by it (coincidently ones generally supportive of Bush). "assessed penalties from the EPA declined from $240.6 million in 1998 to $137.7 million in 2007"

Or Democrat administrations like to abuse the regulatory state to compel compliance to presidential policy.

The Clinton EPA does not hold a candle to the Clinton Justice Department and HUD lawsuits and other legal actions to compel banks to make subprime home mortgage loans.

In any case, both administrations appear to be enforcing EPA regs to different degrees and there is nothing comparable here to blanket waivers to political supporters from the onerous mandates Congress' Obamacare and immigration legislation.

You are again welcome to try again, but your President is indeed a transformational figure in this area.

Best dramentary I have seen in many, many years. Unsparingly realistic without giving away actual CIA intelligence gathering means and methods.

Zero Dark Thirty is nothing like Obama kills Osama movie the Obama reelection campaign, er...Obama administration hoped would be released before the election when they gave Director Bigelow access to the CIA.

Instead, this is pretty much the OBL hunt from the perspective of the CIA with a number of subtle shots at the Obama termination of CIA interrogation program drying up new intelligence and a scathing series of scenes of the CIA political appointees (and by implication the president) delaying the attack on the OBL compound for well over 100 days.

I highly recommend the film "The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday" which is playing in Bart's mind. It's a "dramentary" which means he believes it.

Bart, I didn't mean to 'misrepresent', only edit for space. I thought my subsequent "seemed awful friendly to businesses regulated by it (coincidently ones generally supportive of Bush)" acknowledged that you were looking for refusals to enforce the law to benefit supporters.

"Or Democrat administrations like to abuse the regulatory state to compel compliance to presidential policy.

"The Clinton EPA does not hold a candle to the Clinton Justice Department and HUD lawsuits and other legal actions to compel banks to make subprime home mortgage loans"

OK, so there is precedent for Obama's energetic executive, of do you not count this because it was using executive authority to compel rather than excuse?

"both administrations appear to be enforcing EPA regs to different degrees and there is nothing comparable here to blanket waivers to political supporters"

Actually, they are very comparable. Obama is enforcing immigration decrees, he's just not going after a certain class, a class which you seem to think is generally his supporters (of course, they are not voters so I'm not sure what that means). Likewise Bush did enforce EPA decrees against his supporters, but obviously to a substantially lesser degree than the previous administration.

As to the killing of OBL, can you imagine if had occurred under order of Bush? We would never have heard the end of it. The downplaying of it happening under Obama by conservatives speaks volumes about how much it rankles them that the number one goal of the US for years got accomplished under a 'Democrat' administration...

Obama is enforcing immigration decrees, he's just not going after a certain class, a class which you seem to think is generally his supporters...

Huh?

Obama has suspended enforcement of immigration laws against an entire age group of over a million illegal immigrants and illegally issued them work permits.

For your counter example to be comparable, Mr. Bush would have had to suspend enforcement of the Clean Air Act against the oil industry and then illegally give away federal oil lease land to the industry for free.

Mr. W: As to the killing of OBL, can you imagine if had occurred under order of Bush? We would never have heard the end of it. The downplaying of it happening under Obama by conservatives speaks volumes about how much it rankles them that the number one goal of the US for years got accomplished under a 'Democrat' administration...

For once, we agree completely.

My only complaint with the Democrat's crowing is that they also deny that the intelligence gathered by the CIA under Bush was instrumental in finding OBL and that some Obama policy had something to do with the CIA's magnificent work tracking him down and SEAL Team Six's execution of the mission.

All Obama did was finally give the go after dithering for over 100 days. Half a back pat.

All the politicians of both parties need to step aside and acknowledge the genuine heroes in the CIA and military who accomplished this mission.

"All Obama did was finally give the go after dithering for over 100 days. Half a back pat."

suggests that the killing of OBL was a mere ministerial act that could have been accomplished 100 days earlier. But the best laid plans of mice and men - or Bush and Dick? - can oft go astray, which it almost did with OBL. What would our yodeler have said in the latter case? Perhaps the Bush/Cheney reluctance to get OBL should be compared to Reagan's failure to directly respond with force to the killing of so many U.S. Marines in Beirut on his watch. (Reagan got his C-I-C creds in Grenada of romantic song fame.)

Shag: ...suggests that the killing of OBL was a mere ministerial act that could have been accomplished 100 days earlier.

Yes, nothing changed over that period, to the vast good fortune of those delaying the op.

Perhaps the Bush/Cheney reluctance to get OBL...

Hero, the CIA did not find OBL for over a decade at the cost of a great deal of blood and effort, nearly all expended during the Bush years.

The movie makes clear that the Obama shift in policy from capturing and interrogating al Qaeda (as being contrary to our principles) to simply using drones to kill them all (conforming to our principles?) had completely dried up the intelligence stream. The final break came when a misplaced Bush era file was found more fully identifying bin Laden's courier.

Interestingly, for all the left's caterwauling about the film showing the successes of the Bush era interrogation, there has not been a peep about Obama's orders to assassinate OBL rather than capture and bring him back for interrogation and trial. The movie accurately shows the SEALs wounding an unarmed bin Laden (the coward left his AK-47 on the wall) and then firing two shots into his head (double tapping) to ensure he was dead.

More of Mr. Obama's celebrated American principles?

Once again, half a back pat for finally ordering the operation. The rest, not so much.

"Obama has suspended enforcement of immigration laws against an entire age group of over a million illegal immigrants and illegally issued them work permits."

That's a misrepresentation, isn't it? It's not a suspension of enforcement of immigration laws against an entire age group, it is a two year deferrment for those immigrants here illegally who:

1.Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

2.Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;

3.Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

4.Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;

5.Are not above the age of thirty."

And even for those meeting the criteria: "Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis. DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted."

Far from "not enforcing" immigration laws the Obama administration has had higher deportations than the Bush administration. It's just that the former's administration has prioritized some offenders (violent criminals) whild deciding to defer action on others (those meeting the criteria above).

Note that Bush I's EO 12711 for Chinese nationals applied to "all nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and their dependents who were in the United States on or after June 5, 1989, up to and including the date of this order" and included work authorizations.

1) The criteria you list cover a million illegal immigrants of set age group as I noted. Obama essentially imposed much of the twice defeated DREAM Act by executive decree.

2) The fact that DHS gave itself an out to deny an application for mass murderers and other politically embarrassing illegal immigrants is irrelevant, no one has been turned away.

3) I never claimed that Obama did not enforce any immigration laws or that he did not deport many illegals. These are straw men, unrelated to the issue of the Obama decree.

Note that Bush I's EO 12711 for Chinese nationals applied to "all nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and their dependents who were in the United States on or after June 5, 1989, up to and including the date of this order" and included work authorizations.

I was wondering when you were going to identify your mysterious example of Bush immigration "Caesarism." Does this EO entered into the regulations of the Federal Register somehow violate the immigration laws? It sounds like Bush is making a determination of what family members can join very legal Chinese immigrants.

Well said. While, like Obama, I don't want to take anything away from the professionals who did the bulk of the work in getting OBL, I'm not sure that ever CiC would have made the decision to act against OBL unilaterally in Pakistan. Clinton passed on chances during his term and at least one GOP presidential candidate, John McCain, seemed to repeatedly reject then-candidate Obama's determination to get OBL in Pakistan, and instead talked of the need to inform and work with our "ally" Pakistan in such a situation.

"The criteria you list cover a million illegal immigrants of set age group as I noted."

Do you have any citation for that number?

"The fact that DHS gave itself an out to deny an application for mass murderers and other politically embarrassing illegal immigrants is irrelevant"

Violent criminals are covered by the criteria named, but this is very relevant: it re-enforces what this is: prosecutorial discretion.

"I never claimed that Obama did not enforce any immigration laws or that he did not deport many illegals"

One can't argue that Obama is not enforcing the law when he clearly is. He's just aiming his enforcement, a normal thing for administrative agencies to do.

"I was wondering when you were going to identify your mysterious example of Bush immigration "Caesarism"

I identified this way upthread, it was cited and discussed (among other such examples from previous administrations) in the legal memo justifying Obama's deferred action.

"Does this EO entered into the regulations of the Federal Register somehow violate the immigration laws?"

Since it is the same type of action Obama took (only more categorical!) it do so no more or less than Obama's.

"It sounds like Bush is making a determination of what family members can join very legal Chinese immigrants"

I don't think so: "The Attorney General is directed to take any steps necessary to defer until January 1, 1994, the enforced departure of all nationals of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and their dependents who were in the United States on or after June 5, 1989, up to and including the date of this order (hereinafter "such PRC nationals"

Well, that and all the things Shrub did that made life better for Bin Laden, harder for American soldiers, and less safe for Americans. Oh yeah; and poorer for their kids and grandkids.

"the war will pay for itself!"

So wrong for so long.

Wait, I see a pattern here...MSNBC didn't televise the speech of a Hispanic or African American elected official or candidate at the RNC. . . The center right electorate still opposes Obama policy, which is why they will fire him on Tuesday

Maybe the connection is, if you're stupid and refuse to admit it and are indifferent to the facts or statements thereof by people who aren't stupid, you say completely wrong things and do dumb stuff that ends up failing and making things worse.

The statistics on our yodeler's little mountain idyllic community linked to by jpk might suggest a latent Hatfield and McCoys with feuding and fussing by the little mountain people.

As for our yodeler's investment strategy facing four (4) more years of Pres. Obama:

"I am presently shopping for brokers so I can park my retirement savings in a variety of precious metals, sort of like China moving out of T-Bills and into gold and the Germans shipping home their gold from the Fed and France."

he now has a "prefect" [sic] investment opportunity with his Guru of gold Glenn Beck's recently proposed theme park. Now what, prey tell, is Beck's theme, preying on investors?

With the significant increases in gun purchases since the Newtown, CT shootings and the NRA's celebration of "Gun Appreciation Day," might we draw a comparison with the "Housing Bubble"? If so, how might the "Gun Bubble" burst?

Even if the judiciary decided to look the other way, the scheme is so fundamentally unserious that it would likely spell the end of our status as a reserve currency, investors everywhere would flee dollars for fear of whatever our government might think to do next.FUT 14 CoinsLeague of Legends elo boostCheapest FIFA 14 Coins